No Oppo Supporters Re-signing Tex, Danger and Sloane *** Crows Only ***

[DD#23]

That may be so, but what in that clip reinforced this perception?

nothing miraculous about anything specific in that video but the more we see the more obvious it is that he has clubman written all over him.

you can bookmark it right now, he's not leaving. For him to even consider it we'd have to finish bottom 4 or he'd have to receive an offer in the order of $1.6m+ a year - neither of which are going to happen.

 

[Allefgib]

Maybe he's a great clubman in search of a great club...?

 

[DD#23]

Maybe he's a great clubman in search of a great club...?

nah, I feel like he's well attached here.

I know I'm going to receive a few rebuttals, but I'm not interested in debating it really because the bottom line is that my optimism and other people's pessimism are purely speculative so we'll leave it at that.

 

[Glenno23]

nah, I feel like he's well attached here.

I know I'm going to receive a few rebuttals, but I'm not interested in debating it really because the bottom line is that my optimism and other people's pessimism are purely speculative so we'll leave it at that.

I am also on the optimistic side. But that's me in general

 

[The Sloane Ranger]

nothing miraculous about anything specific in that video but the more we see the more obvious it is that he has clubman written all over him.

you can bookmark it right now, he's not leaving. For him to even consider it we'd have to finish bottom 4 or he'd have to receive an offer in the order of $1.6m+ a year - neither of which are going to happen.

This has been my point for 3-4 months

Danger ain't going anywhere

 

[baldandbroke]

Love this quote from here:

Walsh said the fact Dangerfield and Sloane had yet to commit to the Crows beyond next season won't factor into his decision.

The Victorian-born duo is expected to field free agency offers from rival clubs.
​

Sloaney getting Free Agency offers next year now, do these people really deserve to be called journalists?

 

[Elite Crow]

Love this quote from here:

Walsh said the fact Dangerfield and Sloane had yet to commit to the Crows beyond next season won't factor into his decision.

The Victorian-born duo is expected to field free agency offers from rival clubs.
​

Sloaney getting Free Agency offers next year now, do these people really deserve to be called journalists?

McDermottn proof read.

You would hope Shutts would be on to them picking up errors

 

[I Lost My Keays]

A couple of Carlton supporters believe Danger will head over to them

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

A couple of Carlton supporters believe Danger will head over to them

Lol, they are desperate for good news - pity danger hates trigg & wants to play in finals.

Gone are the day's you can just buy players, exceed the cap like their last flag or convince the Afl to pay a gun player outside the cap with a dodgy sponsorship by the president.

 

[I Lost My Keays]

Lol, they are desperate for good news - pity danger hates trigg & wants to play in finals.

Gone are the day's you can just buy players, exceed the cap like their last flag or convince the Afl to pay a gun player outside the cap with a dodgy sponsorship by the president.

Who wants to join that rabble...... they aren't going anywhere in the near distant future

 

[robboaustralia]

Time for a bit more of this.....



Tweeted Fitzy and he seemed to like it.

 

[deeztreez]

Time for a bit more of this.....



Tweeted Fitzy and he seemed to like it.

And while we're on it, Hughesys spray always good for a laugh

 

[Tantidar]

Now Rory's locked down Belinda, does his asking price go up?

 

[Pdub]

Now Rory's locked down Belinda, does his asking price go up?

Maybe he bought the ring because he just got a pay rise.

 

[Wallace]

simple question....

Would you be happy to pay seriously significant money to retain Danger (say $7m 5 year deal) if it ended up costing us the cap space to keep Brad Crouch in two years time?

You have to pick your 'franchise' players in the era of free agency very carefully.

Personally I would be happy to bank on the Tex, Sloane, Talia and B.Crouch quartet as the franchise players for the next 5 years and back in the draft and moneybag approach from there

 

[Red mist]

simple question....

Would you be happy to pay seriously significant money to retain Danger (say $7m 5 year deal) if it ended up costing us the cap space to keep Brad Crouch in two years time?

You have to pick your 'franchise' players in the era of free agency very carefully.

Personally I would be happy to bank on the Tex, Sloane, Talia and B.Crouch quartet as the franchise players for the next 5 years and back in the draft and moneybag approach from there

IMO for 5 yrs 7mil no
6 mil maybe
5 mil yes

 

[Schulzycrow]

Fitzy should be on Nobes' team for contract negotiations for sure Robbo. Like your thinking....very funny skit thou, still gets a giggle.

 

[huludicidal]

simple question....

Would you be happy to pay seriously significant money to retain Danger (say $7m 5 year deal) if it ended up costing us the cap space to keep Brad Crouch in two years time?

You have to pick your 'franchise' players in the era of free agency very carefully.

Personally I would be happy to bank on the Tex, Sloane, Talia and B.Crouch quartet as the franchise players for the next 5 years and back in the draft and moneybag approach from there

The problem with this logic is that you have to maximise the value received in return for the potential franchise players you let go. We failed to do this when we lost Gunston and Bock. We miserably failed when we lost Tippett. We're still paying the price for these failures now by being out of the finals in 4 of the last 5 seasons.

If we were going to roll with the Tex, Sloane, Talia, B Crouch quartet, we HAD to trade Dangerfield at some stage in the last 14 months. While Danger would never have agreed to a trade to Melbourne, something definitely could have been worked out with the Pies (pick 5, someone like Sam Frost and some gravy on top of that) or Cats (picks 14 and 21, M Stokes and G Horlin-Smith).

Losing him to free agency will net us something like Pick 13 in the upcoming draft. This would be an unmitigated disaster.

I'm far from convinced that he'll leave, but make no mistake, if he does leave, it's going to be a massive hole that we need to climb out of.

 

[Wallace]

The problem with this logic is that you have to maximise the value received in return for the potential franchise players you let go. We failed to do this when we lost Gunston and Bock. We miserably failed when we lost Tippett. We're still paying the price for these failures now by being out of the finals in 4 of the last 5 seasons.

If we were going to roll with the Tex, Sloane, Talia, B Crouch quartet, we HAD to trade Dangerfield at some stage in the last 14 months. While Danger would never have agreed to a trade to Melbourne, something definitely could have been worked out with the Pies (pick 5, someone like Sam Frost and some gravy on top of that) or Cats (picks 14 and 21, M Stokes and G Horlin-Smith).

Losing him to free agency will net us something like Pick 13 in the upcoming draft. This would be an unmitigated disaster.

I'm far from convinced that he'll leave, but make no mistake, if he does leave, it's going to be a massive hole that we need to climb out of.

The difference in afl free agency is that clubs don't have unrestricted trading of players. Quite an incredible oversight by the afl in the last collective bargaining agreement.

The result is the club cannot simply trade a player to maximise their return two years or a year early. The player must agree to the trade.
This Gives ALL the negotiating power to player. The club simply cant negotiate the way you are describing. Put yourself in dangers shoes in the offseason. Further lets assume he actually is looking to win a premiership and get paid rather than simply go to the highest bidder (as he seems to be implying).

If danger wants team success at his next club it is in his interest not to agree to a trade. In your example it is better for him for the pies to keep their picks, top up elite talent and let the Pies play them for a year before he gets there. He then joins at the end of the following year on big money to a more talented new club with a better shot at the flag.

It also gives danger 12 more months to check out the moves at those new clubs. A change in coach and other free agent signings could also lead him to think hawthorn or richmond are a better fit.

I suspect this is the scenario we are actually seeing be played out right now.

All the club can do it has done. New coach, new ceo, likely chasing free agents itself. Saying we should have traded him in the offseason is nonsense for the reasons outlined above.

If he doesnt want to re sign he has all the power.

 

[dylan123]

simple question....

Would you be happy to pay seriously significant money to retain Danger (say $7m 5 year deal) if it ended up costing us the cap space to keep Brad Crouch in two years time?

You have to pick your 'franchise' players in the era of free agency very carefully.

Personally I would be happy to bank on the Tex, Sloane, Talia and B.Crouch quartet as the franchise players for the next 5 years and back in the draft and moneybag approach from there

Why can't we hold onto them all? We're not the only club with a few potentially A grade players.

Sides like Geelong, Hawthorn, Sydeny etc have all kept their stars together for the most part with lists far stronger than ours. Yes Franklin and Ablett left, but that was both after some time staying on those lists.

Paying 1mill + for Dangerfield starts to make it harder but I'm also of the belief our list isn't anywhere near the level that those teams lists have been and yet they were able to get it to work.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

You can pay your stars more if you pay your blue collar types less, which we've bragged for years that we don't do.

You can get away with paying your stars less if you are having success.

So two strikes there.

We were also slow to change mindset where the competition started paying speculative dollars to lock away potential, rather than rewarding performance.

 

[huludicidal]

The difference in afl free agency is that clubs don't have unrestricted trading of players. Quite an incredible oversight by the afl in the last collective bargaining agreement.

The result is the club cannot simply trade a player to maximise their return two years or a year early. The player must agree to the trade.
This Gives ALL the negotiating power to player. The club simply cant negotiate the way you are describing. Put yourself in dangers shoes in the offseason. Further lets assume he actually is looking to win a premiership and get paid rather than simply go to the highest bidder (as he seems to be implying).

If danger wants team success at his next club it is in his interest not to agree to a trade. In your example it is better for him for the pies to keep their picks, top up elite talent and let the Pies play them for a year before he gets there. He then joins at the end of the following year on big money to a more talented new club with a better shot at the flag.

It also gives danger 12 more months to check out the moves at those new clubs. A change in coach and other free agent signings could also lead him to think hawthorn or richmond are a better fit.

I suspect this is the scenario we are actually seeing be played out right now.

All the club can do it has done. New coach, new ceo, likely chasing free agents itself. Saying we should have traded him in the offseason is nonsense for the reasons outlined above.

If he doesnt want to re sign he has all the power.

If the club said to Patrick, "Patty, if you don't re-sign by October we just can't risk losing you as a FA so we're going to explore trades with Victorian clubs - we'll let you pick 3 that you're willing to go to and take the negotiations from there - the ball is now in your court", I'm pretty positive a deal could have been done. Assuming that Patty would never have agreed to a trade to any club this past offseason is pretty naive. He's far more likely to do so than Bernie Vince ever was. His choices would no doubt have included Geelong, who had plenty of tradeable assets available (picks 14, 21, Horlin-Smith, Stokes, Dawson Simpson, Nathan Vardy, Murdoch etc). I'm pretty sure some combination of all that would have been sufficient for both parties.

If we do manage to re-sign him, the club has made the right choice in not going down that path. Otherwise, we haven't IMO.

I have no idea whether or not we'll be able to convince him to stay. All I know is that if he doesn't stay, we're going to be hurting for a while.

 

[1970crow]

Why can't we hold onto them all? We're not the only club with a few potentially A grade players.

Sides like Geelong, Hawthorn, Sydeny etc have all kept their stars together for the most part with lists far stronger than ours. Yes Franklin and Ablett left, but that was both after some time staying on those lists.

Paying 1mill + for Dangerfield starts to make it harder but I'm also of the belief our list isn't anywhere near the level that those teams lists have been and yet they were able to get it to work.

I think the difference, at least potentially, is that those teams are all successful. There's been talk of players at Geelong accepting unders to keep playing together. Swans have an extra $million or so to spend and ignore their claims that they voluntarily negotiate based on the cap and THEN add the cola to the contracts. Not sure about the hawks, but they can sell success. You can bet they got a disillusioned gunston for a bargain. I also reckon they spend a lot more on their best 22 and roll the dice that their next tier will be ok because if having the system drilled into them. Walsh's comment on Cheney provides some support of my thinking there.

 

[dylan123]

I think the difference, at least potentially, is that those teams are all successful. There's been talk of players at Geelong accepting unders to keep playing together. Swans have an extra $million or so to spend and ignore their claims that they voluntarily negotiate based on the cap and THEN add the cola to the contracts. Not sure about the hawks, but they can sell success. You can bet they got a disillusioned gunston for a bargain. I also reckon they spend a lot more on their best 22 and roll the dice that their next tier will be ok because if having the system drilled into them. Walsh's comment on Cheney provides some support of my thinking there.

Yeah certainly hard to disagree with that as dabm mentioned also. Basically just pointing out that if we were to give Dangerfield a 7mill for 5 year sort of deal it wouldn't mean we'd lose Brad Crouch/another star in a few years time. Of course you'd want to hope we as a side become a lot better before those next lot of players come out of contract.

As I've said elsewhere on here as well I think, success draws players to the club which is all the more reason for us to try and keep Dangerfield. We're a better side with him then without and we're far more likely of attracting more players to the club with him there (imo). Those 3 clubs I mentioned in my post have all chased numerous players and got them at a cheaper price because of where they're at as a team.

 

[1970crow]

Yeah certainly hard to disagree with that as dabm mentioned also. Basically just pointing out that if we were to give Dangerfield a 7mill for 5 year sort of deal it wouldn't mean we'd lose Brad Crouch/another star in a few years time. Of course you'd want to hope we as a side become a lot better before those next lot of players come out of contract.

As I've said elsewhere on here as well I think, success draws players to the club which is all the more reason for us to try and keep Dangerfield. We're a better side with him then without and we're far more likely of attracting more players to the club with him there (imo). Those 3 clubs I mentioned in my post have all chased numerous players and got them at a cheaper price because of where they're at as a team.

Calculated risk. We'd need to have a fair bit of confidence in our footy dept to fill up our future salary cap and hope to low-ball based on premiership success though. Especially considering a gap in high end draft pucks to be felt if we cannot replace them with suitable free agents. But I do kinda like the idea of rolling the dice, very old un-adelaide like. Well, at least legally.